The Puritans, Government, and Democracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
zsmcd

zsmcd

Puritan Board Freshman
I am new to reading the Puritans. My current understanding of them goes no further than the secular textbooks I read in high school, a few theological books (i.e. John Owen, etc.), and America's general consensus of disgust towards their religious fervor.

For my US History class at Liberty I am reading on the trial of Anne Hutchinson and came across the statement that the Puritans "looked on democracy as the worst form of government".

Would the Puritans government in America be properly labeled as a theonomy? Why would they view a democracy "as the worst form of government?" What is the potential correlation between a theonomy and a democracy?
 
Zach,

This is a HUGE topic. I'll just start by saying that the Puritans favored a republic, over against a democracy.

Theonomy is a modern term and a modern concept. In my opinion, it muddies the waters to use the term theonomy when referring to anyone before the mid-1900s. The Puritans were in favor of the establishment of religion.

Before a meaningful discussion can be made of this subject, all of these terms should be understood.
 
Like Tyler says, the Bay Colony Puritans would favor an established church, and a godly commonwealth. However, one could argue--and several have--that the Bay Colony Congregationalists sowed the seeds of democracy. After all, their church polity was based largely on the democratization of church power.

Might depend on the Puritan(s) you're talking about. Presbyterians objected to democracy in church government, but not necessarily to a "democratic"/representative civil government, so long as the representatives upheld the true religion.
 
zsmcd said:
I am new to reading the Puritans. My current understanding of them goes no further than the secular textbooks I read in high school, a few theological books (i.e. John Owen, etc.), and America's general consensus of disgust towards their religious fervor.

For my US History class at Liberty I am reading on the trial of Anne Hutchinson and came across the statement that the Puritans "looked on democracy as the worst form of government".

Would the Puritans government in America be properly labeled as a theonomy? Why would they view a democracy "as the worst form of government?" What is the potential correlation between a theonomy and a democracy?
Click to expand...

John Cotton and the Mass. Bay Colony would (as Jon states) favor a godly commonwealth. I'd do research on John Cotton's Laws for the Mass. Bay Colony. However, I do not agree that they would favor an established church. Many of the puritans in New England were independent.

If you want to understand American Puritanism I would start with John Cotton. If you are looking for puritanism as a whole, I'd recommend reading the History of the Westminster Assembly by William Hetherington.

**Also, I'd add that presbyterians (specifically covenanters) do not favor a government "by the people".
 
It just occurred to me that puritan is another term that should be carefully defined in a discussion like this. In England, there were tremendous differences in the views of the Independent puritans and the Presbyterian puritans on civil government.

Is the question limited to Massachusetts Bay puritans?
 
TylerRay said:
It just occurred to me that puritan is another term that should be carefully defined in a discussion like this. In England, there were tremendous differences in the views of the Independent puritans and the Presbyterian puritans on civil government.

Is the question limited to Massachusetts Bay puritans?
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose I was specifically referring to American Puritans, and more specifically the Mas Bay Puritans. Thank you all for all your helpful inputs. It is surely humbling to realize how little I know!
 
Andrew P.C. said:
John Cotton and the Mass. Bay Colony would (as Jon states) favor a godly commonwealth. I'd do research on John Cotton's Laws for the Mass. Bay Colony. However, I do not agree that they would favor an established church. Many of the puritans in New England were independent.
Click to expand...

Though I suspect they would have been in favor of promoting only Christian churches and not false churches. :)
 
zsmcd said:
TylerRay said:
It just occurred to me that puritan is another term that should be carefully defined in a discussion like this. In England, there were tremendous differences in the views of the Independent puritans and the Presbyterian puritans on civil government.

Is the question limited to Massachusetts Bay puritans?
Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose I was specifically referring to American Puritans, and more specifically the Mas Bay Puritans. Thank you all for all your helpful inputs. It is surely humbling to realize how little I know!
Click to expand...

And Presbyterians might not even be puritans insofar as many did not seek to reform the Anglican Church, but replace it with a presbyterian polity.


Although, far more relevant to this discussion is what is being meant by democracy. At least four possible definitions come to mind.

1: the modern, vague use of the term; essentially any place where people vote
2: the classical use of the term; mob rule without constitutional or external restraint
3: democracy as a practice; trusting people to make decisions within their community, such as sitting on juries
4: another technical definition being used within a specific context

Except in ancient Athens, academic circles, and among the radical left, direct participatory democracy has been scorned by just about everyone. A serious problem arises when "democracy" is used as a stand in for local governance and community. New England was very "democratic" insofar as it was participatory and contrasted with some of the contemporary political theories in Europe (namely the divine right of kings).

As to the structure of government my understanding is that many puritans in Britain (and most in New England) favored constitutionalism broadly speaking, often contractual, but not necessarily so.
 
Andrew P.C. said:
However, I do not agree that they would favor an established church.
Click to expand...

Independency and an established church aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The fact that ministers were supported through taxation makes it seem that they certainly favored an established church (Perry Miller, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 14, 73-101); that was the complaint of the early Baptists (i.e. Backus).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top